|
Tenderloin posted:My FLGS owner told me when I bought it to just not read about strategy for the game online and I most likely won't come across it, so that is what I intend to do. You have to take your FLGS' owner's statement with a grain of salt, because the game-breaking strategy in question is trivial to come across naturally. So trivial, in fact, that a large amount of the people who discuss it wonder how much actual playtesting was done (much less, how much playtesting was done by people who've played deckbuilders before). You basically play the path of least resistance as the British and win automatically due to mechanically poor but historically accurate map design.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:20 |
|
|
Once you start treating A Few Acres of Snow as a deckbuilder as BL suggested rather than a strategy game (which it emphatically isn't), then it's pretty easy to work out the breaking strategy. It's a shame because the game itself has some good ideas, although some are implemented badly. Certainly not one of Wallace's best games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
As I understand it, if you're a halfway decent Dominion player the strategy is obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
You know what's really funny?Tenderloin posted:I ended up winning by drafting the Governor and paring my deck down to just military symbols and just the few connected city cards I thought would be most vulnerable. TENDERLOIN ALREADY FOUND THE STRATEGY. How many games did that take you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
High Frontier has been mentioned a few times in this thread and almost everybody says "Get the expansion to play the real game." Unfortunately this expansion exists practically nowhere. I see there's a "revised" edition but apparently it's just new pieces?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Aerox posted:I spent the past four days at MAGFest in Maryland, and they had a decent board game room set up, that I spent most of my time in.... I am saddened by this because I was at MAGFest as well and I actually brought my (all intact except insert) copy of Mage Knight and played it twice in a row. I do think Mage Knight is a game where you either need someone to teach it or need to read through/play the tutorial solo beforehand to get a good grasp on it. Speaking of MAGFest, I spent most of my time at that place's rather nifty board game The centerpiece of play for me was a six-player game of Eclipse. I honestly was rather ambivalent towards the game back when I first played it, but I'm starting to warm up to it now. My main gripe about the game is that it's fairly
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:You know what's really funny? Welp. I had A Few Acres in my cart and was trying to figure out how to spend the other $72 to get free shipping on CSI until I saw this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
Mage Knight has really rushed rules. They basically wrote them in a hurry to make it for Essen. The original print has a bunch of errors and the overall formatting expects you to know the solo tutorial which you have to reference in a lot of cases. It's really unfortunate and the game needs a book for the tutorial and a separate book for referencing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Mage Knight has really rushed rules. They basically wrote them in a hurry to make it for Essen. The original print has a bunch of errors and the overall formatting expects you to know the solo tutorial which you have to reference in a lot of cases. It's really unfortunate and the game needs a book for the tutorial and a separate book for referencing. Is there a second edition now with revised rules? I was considering picking it up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
al-azad posted:High Frontier has been mentioned a few times in this thread and almost everybody says "Get the expansion to play the real game." Unfortunately this expansion exists practically nowhere. I see there's a "revised" edition but apparently it's just new pieces? Yeah. Instead of reprinting the expansion they're using it as the basis for a bigger expansion "High Frontier: Colonization" that's planned for Fall 2013. I think preorders/details are on the publishers website. Someone (sherrard?) said the designer might be screwing with the game to push his politics though. I think I'll wait and see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
Huntsekker posted:Is there a second edition now with revised rules? I was considering picking it up. In response to a review I wrote on BGG, the guy who did the English manual said the second edition corrects errors like "crystalcrystal" which shows up multiple times. As to whether or not the manual is significantly different, I don't know. FebrezeNinja posted:Yeah. Instead of reprinting the expansion they're using it as the basis for a bigger expansion "High Frontier: Colonization" that's planned for Fall 2013. I think preorders/details are on the publishers website. Eeeeehh, wait and see it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
Alberta Cross posted:I know they don't fit in any of the Fantasy Flight sleeves. I'm late to the party, but the small Space Alert cards fit in red-package FFG sleeves (44mm x 68mm "Mini Euro"). I can confirm that they don't fit in the yellow-package ones (41mm x 63mm "Mini American"), the cards are a little too tall. I assume you were talking about the small-size cards. The big ones don't really need to be sleeved since they aren't clutched in sweaty dickbeaters all game. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Trynant posted:The centerpiece of play for me was a six-player game of Eclipse. I honestly was rather ambivalent towards the game back when I first played it, but I'm starting to warm up to it now. My main gripe about the game is that it's fairly I would say that the majority of 4-6 player games will be very passive until turn 6-9, like you said. But there is something great about being the guy that buys Neutron Bombs right away and starts sending Suicide Interceptors towards undefended systems on turns 2-4.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Soma Soma Soma posted:I would say that the majority of 4-6 player games will be very passive until turn 6-9, like you said. But there is something great about being the guy that buys Neutron Bombs right away and starts sending Suicide Interceptors towards undefended systems on turns 2-4. Having played with "Rise of the Ancients" last Thursday, I can tell you that direct conflict comes pretty early now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Also late on sleeve chat, but I've heard pretty good things about these for Dominion, and they're pretty inexpensive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
I have a recommendation question, does anyone have any short (30 min - 1 hour) games that are big on spite? Namely the ability to gently caress other other players in remarkably dickish ways? Turns out the reason we play risk is to figure out how to back stab each other at the best/worst possible times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:Having played with "Rise of the Ancients" last Thursday, I can tell you that direct conflict comes pretty early now. This makes me want to play it that much more. Can't wait to see how the new races, tech, and all the other little things they added change the pace of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Funso Banjo posted:Spartacus The art isn't great, but most of the cards have stills from the show rather than the illustrated stuff. I bought it on a whim over Xmas and have only played it once, but my first impression is that the non-combat part of the game is pretty good, although you need the right people to make it work (people who are prepared to scheme, trick and backstab each other to get ahead). The rulebook even says this outright, with the caveat of 'don't be an rear end about it' (exact words). We played with three players and very little co-operation or antagonism beyond the mechanical, and it was alright but not amazing. I can't imagine it would work very well with two, as it would come down to mostly luck about who drew the best cards. What really lets it down in my opinion is the gladiatorial combat. It's plain 'move then attack' or 'attack then move' on a dead flat hex grid with absolutely no terrain features. Each gladiator moves their speed each turn, with no variation, which leads to a stupid amount of stalemates where neither player wants to move within striking distance of the other. A faster gladiator will almost always act first (you roll D6 x Speed for initiative each round) and if you are substantially faster you can abuse the move-attack, attack-move mechanic to get two hits in for your opponent's one. Attack and block is done via dice strings and works reasonably well. By the end of our game we were sick of the moving around and just stood toe to toe and smacked each other. There are a lot of nice mechanics which make the game quite fun. Secret auctions for 'store' items/characters, as well as to host the games. The host chooses which players are invited to the fight, and also has the decision on whether to let the loser live or die. You can wager on the fights and even on special results like decapitation. The Influence mechanic lets you play powered up cards if you can get another player to agree to aid you (and you don't have to keep any promises you make to secure said aid). Generally speaking it's a fun game that I would definitely play again, but you need the right people and also the combat desperately needs either some house ruling or a complete revamp. Thankfully due to the combat being almost completely isolated from the rest of the game mechanics, this would be fairly painless to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 03:58
|
|
|
homerlaw posted:I have a recommendation question, does anyone have any short (30 min - 1 hour) games that are big on spite? Namely the ability to gently caress other other players in remarkably dickish ways? Turns out the reason we play risk is to figure out how to back stab each other at the best/worst possible times. Intrigue is good for this. The basic premise of the game is that you are...Shah's? or something? And you have a palace and the other players apply to spots in the palace for a salary each turn. But there can only be one of each type of unit (priest, inventor, whatever) in each palace, so they have to offer you bribes to get theirs in. And they pay you the bribes and then you make your decision about who goes in where. The entire game is dicking each other over and making promises you don't keep. The one time I played with my friends I was raking it in and set to win until the last turn where my buddy and I were both applying for the last spot, and my friend turned to my buddy he was applying to and goes "I'll give you all of my money if you let me have the spot, just so Quidnose won't win." Don't know if that was allowed in the rules but BOY was I pissed! UFBRT does a way better job explaining how the game works than I ever could, haha: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p5Xkdkb2SI
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Are there any euro-style games that feature hidden roles as a central mechanic, but not the game-deciding mechanic? Like how in Bang or The Resistance, the entire point is to figure out who everyone else is, and then you win (or lose), something that isn't like that. Citadels sort of does what I'm talking about (roles dictate what you do and how you do it, but the game isn't about figuring out who everyone else is), but since the roles are constantly shifting and getting revealed it's not exactly what I mean. I think there is a game that might be something along the lines you suggest called Lifeboat. http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4174/lifeboat If you survive you score your characters vps plus...... It has a mechanic of you have a secret love character card and secret hate character card. If your loved one survives you score their vps. If your hate figure dies you score their vps. If you love yourself you're a narcissist and you score your vps twice in total. If you hate yourself you're a psychopath and you get the combined vps of all the other dead characters, but none for your own survival. If you love and hate yourself you just get the standard survival vps mentioned first in this list. The Player at the front of the boat navigates and draws cards on who falls out the boat and loses all their played provisions and gets a wound (or dies if they are wounded to unconciousness). That navigation card says who gets thirsty depending on whether they were in a fight and/or who helped row to shore (extra navigation card for the navigator). Thirst causes a wound unless you use a water provision card. Also the cards can have a seagull on it or a -1 seagull symbol or neither of those two. 3 Seagulls and you are all saved if still alive but you score who the winner is. Person at the back of the boat gets first draft of a draw of provisions (which all run out after several turns) then onward to the front of the boat. You bully each other for your provision cards in your hand or your position in the boat. If the bulied doesn't yield there is a fight. The fights are funny because you all have different fight strengths but you pull weapons out and other people can weigh in and help your side or your opponent. The losing side all take a wound each. Also each character has a special ability. I almost had a dream game of this because I was the psychopath and most of the rest of the other characters were knocked unconcious. However the captain who was the love of my life was powerless and also unconcious and I would make it remain that way whilst I fondled him. I was navigating with a big weapon and therefore the other still lucid players couldn't match me in fightyness to take me down. Because I was navigating I could make sure that we didn't find land for a while, in order for the other crew members to fall out of the boat and drown. However out of the two cards I drew to navigate I had no choice but to play a third and final seagull and get rescued and lose to someone else who had a big art collection. I still laugh at the thought of my Doctor character stroking the Captain whilst he was unconcious and killing off the other characters to keep him all to myself, whilst I pretend to row for shore and failing. It has in a few expansions, one with canibalism cards where you must all agree to eat a dead character to get a wound back. If that sounds like the sort of game you might enjoy (or indeed anyone with a sick and dark sense of humour like a SA forum member), check it out. It does have player elimination though, but it shouldn't happen too early. Worth getting some tokens to denote who participated in a fight and who rowed and keep them in the box, 6 of each or 8 of each if you get the extra character cards expansion. I use black glass beads to denote bruises and blue glass beads to denote the water being rowed. homerlaw posted:I have a recommendation question, does anyone have any short (30 min - 1 hour) games that are big on spite? Namely the ability to gently caress other other players in remarkably dickish ways? Turns out the reason we play risk is to figure out how to back stab each other at the best/worst possible times. Edit - Hahaha yes this one. FelchTragedy fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Jan 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Let's assume you're a moron. Let's assume you're the specific type of moron who wants to make a board game. Let's assume you're a very specific type of moron who wants to make a tile-based board game with a zombie theme and rules that scale so you can play anything from "tense survival with shamblers" to "gore-tastic ragezombie murderfest", that uses monster tactics so it can be played solo, What are some of the major pitfalls of games that use A) tiles for exploration, B) self-piloting monsters, and/or C) zombies? Please keep it to a small encyclopedia for the last one. 
girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jan 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Colon V posted:What are some of the major pratfalls of games that use A) tiles for exploration, B) self-piloting monsters, and/or C) zombies? Please keep it to a small encyclopedia for the last one. I don't think pratfall means what you think it means, I think pitfall is probably more what you're looking for. To answer you though: A) Any game that uses tiles for exploration has the problem of imbalance of luck associated with the draw and placement of those tiles. In games like the ones you're describing it can lead to pathing issues, or placement that defies logic. B) Any game with an 'AI' that doesn't have a random element to their algorithm can be exploited by knowing what it will do before it does it. The AI for these monsters is usually fairly simple as well, meaning that it probably won't be very challenging to overcome. C) Zombie games in my opinion tend to be pretty boring, because as mentioned the AI for the zombies is dumb. There's never a good balanced between too many and too few zombies either. If there's too few you engage and kill them, if there's too many then you run away until you win from whatever else you're trying to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
How would this "moron's" game differ from something like http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/41372/zombie-in-my-pocket ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
homerlaw posted:I have a recommendation question, does anyone have any short (30 min - 1 hour) games that are big on spite? Namely the ability to gently caress other other players in remarkably dickish ways? Turns out the reason we play risk is to figure out how to back stab each other at the best/worst possible times. I've always been a fan of Survive: Escape From Atlantis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
quote:What are some of the major pratfalls of games that use A) tiles for exploration, B) self-piloting monsters, and/or C) zombies? Please keep it to a small encyclopedia for the last one. I think for every time a random scenario like this is fun, you're going to have 5 games where the right path is obvious and it's either way too easy or way too hard. How about some pre-built content - make some setups that you know are fun, balanced, and have some clever tricks/tactics that can be used to solve them? If nothing else, "cheating" and making some balanced/fun maps will help you balance/target your random stuff. The other thing you could do is add some other elements to give players something strategic to do... deckbuilding is overdone right now, but it gives you a lot of options for design, and gives the player something to dig their teeth into a bit - and fits thematically by players using search points to find items or something. Or for two players, you could start with a guy on a random board - then each player takes turns adding their choice of zombies (different kinds, different places, etc.. maybe from a random pool to shake things up). After each zombie is added, the other player has an option tapping out: this means the last player to add a zombie gets to be the human, and the other player (or players, possibly) control the zombies. This way you get randomness, but also some self-balancing. I don't know (or even think) that there's a great idea in the above... but I think you need some real twist or something to bother with another zombie game at this point. (Also, I haven't played many of the current Zombie games, so I don't know what ideas are already out there). quote:B) Any game with an 'AI' that doesn't have a random element to their algorithm can be exploited by knowing what it will do before it does it. The AI for these monsters is usually fairly simple as well, meaning that it probably won't be very challenging to overcome. If you go with pre-built maps and predictable AI, you could make a fun puzzle game (you wouldn't go as extreme as, say, Mummy Maze, but maybe you could funnel the herd around strategically a bit). Obviously pre-built solo content wouldn't last forever... but at least it would be fun while it lasts, and could be a good bonus for an otherwise multiplayer game. jmzero fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Jan 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:I don't think pratfall means what you think it means, I think pitfall is probably more what you're looking for.  You're right. That's what I get for crapping out a message.How I'm thinking of handling each of them. Please tear into these ideas. A) In addition to As for pathing, the best idea I've got is to make sure that each tile has a 'road' in, and at least one 'road' out. That, and I've got another, slightly-weird idea of using a second stack of tiles for rooftops, so on a 'dead end', you can climb up from street level at certain points (the start tile will always have one) and find a different way around. I may or may not be heavily inspired by Left 4 Dead in this regard. B) On one hand, this could be almost desirable. At least with shambler zombies, them moving according to a predictable, simple pattern... fits? As for more complicated/intelligent zombies, well... I'll figure that out. That you mentioned randomization is interesting. I could look into that. C) On a zombie-frequency scale of "Walking Dead" to "Dead Rising 2", I'm aiming somewhere around the neighborhood of "2-3 per tile", with each tile being 4x4. (Downside? I'm gonna need like 30-40 zombie figurines per game.) On dealing with 'run away', if you can avoid the challenges completely until you win, then it's just a poorly-designed game. Also, I might be considering having a day-night cycle of some kind that causes Zombie activity to wax and wane, and/or an optional 'food' mechanic. ...I should really put together a design document, shouldn't I? girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Jan 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
Colon V posted:Let's assume you're a moron. Might want to look at Gears of War which I feel is one of the better designed games in this coop survival genre.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
So Kingdom Death ended up over 2 million dollars on Kickstarter, which is completely insane, it got the final million in a couple days, which makes it all the more incredible. Anybody here actually buy this? I imagine nobody buying it actually cares about the game, since there appears there to be none there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
zandert33 posted:So Kingdom Death ended up over 2 million dollars on Kickstarter, which is completely insane, it got the final million in a couple days, which makes it all the more incredible. I'm tempted to buy it... it looks fantastic
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:I'm tempted to buy it... it looks fantastic Oh man, this is the first time I've heard of this and also the first time I'm super mad I didn't know about a Kickstarter before it closed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
Aerox posted:Oh man, this is the first time I've heard of this and also the first time I'm super mad I didn't know about a Kickstarter before it closed. Maybe I can interest you in a copy of Tentacle Bento?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
Kiranamos posted:Maybe I can interest you in a copy of Tentacle Bento? Oh no, is this actually some terrible rape game? I saw the "sexy" art in the Kickstarter but just thought it was art rewards to get people to donate more. I just thought the monster miniatures looked really cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
quote:On a zombie-frequency scale of "Walking Dead" to "Dead Rising 2", I'm aiming somewhere around the neighborhood of "2-3 per tile", with each tile being 4x4. (Downside? I'm gonna need like 30-40 zombie figurines per game.) On dealing with 'run away', if you can avoid the challenges completely until you win, then it's just a poorly-designed game. Also, I might be considering having a day-night cycle of some kind that causes Zombie activity to wax and wane, and/or an optional 'food' mechanic. I think there's a core balance problem in a game with so many random elements. Either there's no significant variation in the player's options from game to game (which is bad) - or because of that variety, the "average" number of bad guys/fires/pimples is either going to prove much too easy or much too hard. People often see this as a balance problem, but I don't think it's that simple. You see the same problem pop up in all these games, even in professional, successful designs (from Forbidden Island to Space Hulk: Death Angel to everything in between). Lots of these games have some dial you can turn to increase or decrease difficulty - and the games would be much more satisfying if these knobs worked consistently; the problem is there's still too much variance due to randomness. Too often, you still feel like you've won or lost mostly on the basis of whether you got an easy or hard random setup, or whether a bad tile came up at the wrong time. I can't think of any of these games that have a satisfying feeling of strategy, where I feel like anything I've done in a particular game was all that clever or interesting, or where you can even tell usually whether you played well. Some designers attempt to solve this with obscurity, stacking on elements and options so that beginning players will end up playing very poorly and only eventually figure out good play. For example, "Ghost Stories" is a hard game until you figure out the right strategy, but then the game mostly kind of disappears. There's not enough variety between plays to feel like you're not just solving the same puzzle again and again. You can crank up the difficulty, but all this means is that your same "good play" randomly wins less often. Maybe here's an idea: game setup follows rules based on a seed number. So, for example, a number 12435768 means you lay out the initial tiles in that order (or whatever), and the other random elements (enemy placement, etc..) in the game are set based on those initial tiles. Then, in the manual, you list "game numbers" that you've tried and can say are easy, medium, or hard. Serious players can keep retrying the "hard" scenarios, knowing that they're possible with good play (just like people replay the numbered games of Windows Freecell that they fail on). Players at all levels can measure how well they're doing, and tailor the game's difficulty in a way that actually works (instead of fiddling with difficulty knobs, and still either having easy games or getting blown out). I realize not everyone is after a serious strategic/skill game, and a lot of people enjoy something like a Zombie game more for the theme and "seeing what happens"... but I think the random Zombie game territory is explored pretty well at this point. What isn't well explored is co-op/solo games that appeal to strategic/skill gamers. I don't think it's impossible, but I don't think you can get there without confronting the core problem directly: with a random set-up, most games are not going to be balanced for a given player. Anyway, I'm not trying to be down on your idea (and I like the rooftops stuff you mentioned), I just think it's worth exploring some options to make the resulting game feel more substantial skill wise. And sorry for wall of text.. in general I guess it might be better to put this in the Board Game Design thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Aerox posted:Oh no, is this actually some terrible rape game? I saw the "sexy" art in the Kickstarter but just thought it was art rewards to get people to donate more. I just thought the monster miniatures looked really cool. It's not, but a lot of the artwork is super embarrassing/misogynistic, and the "game" part of it is bad/non-existent. Which is strange since, y'know, it's a loving game. But I guess selling pretty models and vague ideas like "kill monsters to get their body parts!!!  :iamafag:" is enough to get 2 million nerd bux as opposed to actual elegant gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
Aerox posted:Oh man, this is the first time I've heard of this and also the first time I'm super mad I didn't know about a Kickstarter before it closed. My wife knows the game is expensive.. with some pieces being 25-50 dollars. The entire game is going to cost hundreds...
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 07:31
|
|
|
Aerox posted:Oh no, is this actually some terrible rape game? I saw the "sexy" art in the Kickstarter but just thought it was art rewards to get people to donate more. That's pretty much what the "sexy" art is, art-mini extras to pump the donations; the boxed game is (mostly) pout-y anime lady free! You can see the armor kits and junk that come with the game if you dig a bit. Of course, one of the add-on monsters has a tentacle dick coming out of his butt, so ymmv.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 07:31
|
|
|
homerlaw posted:I have a recommendation question, does anyone have any short (30 min - 1 hour) games that are big on spite? Namely the ability to gently caress other other players in remarkably dickish ways? Turns out the reason we play risk is to figure out how to back stab each other at the best/worst possible times. I'm not sure if it is still in print or not, but a great one is Dragon's Gold. There are four random dragon cards placed in the center of the table (each with a strength ranging from 5-12), and a certain amount of known treasure to be gained from killing each dragon (represented by colored tokens). Each dragon also has some unknown treasure, drawn at random and added to its hoard once it has been slain. Each player has four heroes (Wizard, Thief, Fighter, Fighter), with strengths 1-4 respectively. Every turn you play a hero on one of the dragons until there is enough strength there in heroes (yours plus other players') to slay the dragon. The game is not about killing dragons. Once the dragon has been slain, its unknown treasure is drawn from the treasure bag and added to the hoard. The players who sent heroes to slay that dragon now have one minute to divide up the treasure. You may not use any random means of dividing treasure (no dicing off, no rock/paper/scissors, no "choose left or right hand"). You may not base any trade on past or future turns (no "I'll take the gold this time, and you can have the copper and silver, but next time you can have the gold"). Everything must be decided by heated debate then and there. All players involved must agree to the division - if anyone says no, the haggling continues until everyone agrees or time runs out. If the time runs out and the treasure has not been divided, all of the treasure is removed from the game and nobody gets anything. Treasure gained is kept behind your own player screen out of view of the other players. If you sent a Thief as one of your heroes, you may reach behind the screen of one of the other involved players after the haggling is done and steal one of their treasure tokens. If you sent a Wizard as well, you may peek and choose the token the Thief steals, as the Wizard told him what to grab. Halfway through the game there is a Market Day, where players may trade treasures such as gems (important, as all treasure is worth points and there are bonuses to be had from collecting sets of gems or having the most of a certain type). Once all dragons from the dragon deck have been slain, the game is over and the player with the most points in treasure wins.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
Charles Get-Out posted:That's pretty much what the "sexy" art is, art-mini extras to pump the donations; the boxed game is (mostly) pout-y anime lady free! You can see the armor kits and junk that come with the game if you dig a bit. Hm, well, now I am mildly embarrassed I was excited for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
zandert33 posted:So Kingdom Death ended up over 2 million dollars on Kickstarter, which is completely insane, it got the final million in a couple days, which makes it all the more incredible.  I guess it's time to help xopods re-skin and re-publish his Sultans of Karaya game. For that kinda money, I'll sell out. Gimme your money you lonely horny nerds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:20 |
|
|
At least Warhammer has a pretty solid game behind it. Kingdom Death looks so boring to actually play that I'm amazed people are so excited about spending $100-200 on Anime Tits Monster Hunter. Oh wait, no, I'm not surprised at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 07:58
|
|